LYNCH·LLP
HOME/EXAMINERS/TC 2100/ROBERT H BEJCEK II
◈ FIND AN EXAMINER OR ART UNIT
◈ USPTO PATENT EXAMINER STATISTICS

Examiner Robert H Bejcek Ii

TECH CENTER 2100 · 4 ART UNITS · 278 DECIDED APPLICATIONS · LAST ACTION JUN 2026
ALLOWANCE RATE = SHARE OF DECIDED APPLICATIONS (ALLOWED + ABANDONED); PENDING EXCLUDED
OVERALL ALLOWANCE RATE · POOLED ACROSS 4 ART UNITS

Examiner Robert H Bejcek Ii has allowed 184 of 278 decided applications (66%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.

66% pooled allowance · benchmarked per art unit below
DATA UPDATED JUNE 25, 2026
AU 2123 · 71%AU 2129 · 63%AU 2148 · 60%AU 2124 · 33%
// READING THIS EXAMINER

What the data says.

Robert H Bejcek II has a public record spanning 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 278 disposed applications, the examiner allowed 184, for an overall allowance rate of 66%. The allowance rate ranges from 60% to 71% across these art units. The examiner's record includes 310 total applications, with 94 abandonments recorded.

// HOW TO READ THESE NUMBERS

How to read these numbers.

This pooled record aggregates data from multiple art units, presenting an overall allowance rate that reflects past disposition patterns across TC 2100. The aggregate figure describes what occurred across decided cases and is not a prediction of any specific application's outcome. Individual art units within the examiner's portfolio may show variation; a separate section details per-art-unit records.

These are aggregate statistics from this examiner's past public record — not predictions about any specific application. The per-art-unit figures below show how the record varies across art units. Our approach to patent prosecution →

// BY ART UNIT

The record, art unit by art unit.

Each section benchmarks this examiner against that art unit's average. Figures are this examiner's own public record within the art unit; the overall rate above pools them.

◈ PRIMARY · ART UNIT 2123
139 APPS · 71% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

71% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 51%
DISPOSITION99 / 40 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION27.7 moart unit avg 29.3 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY47.1 moart unit avg 43.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility70% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)90%
§103 — Obviousness90% · art unit 85%
§112 — Written description & definiteness77%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.

WITH INTERVIEW72%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW70%+2 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 83 decided applications with an interview and 56 without.

ART UNIT 2129
89 APPS · 63% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

63% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION56 / 33 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION23.5 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY40.1 moart unit avg 42.3 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility61% · art unit 63%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)78%
§103 — Obviousness82% · art unit 75%
§112 — Written description & definiteness76%
// INTERVIEW SPLIT

Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.

WITH INTERVIEW75%allowance share
WITHOUT INTERVIEW55%+20 pt difference

A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 36 decided applications with an interview and 53 without.

ART UNIT 2148
79 APPS · 60% ALLOWANCE

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

60% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 65%
DISPOSITION28 / 19 / 32allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION29.7 moart unit avg 29.6 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY52.9 moart unit avg 42.4 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility83% · art unit 70%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)97%
§103 — Obviousness95% · art unit 89%
§112 — Written description & definiteness79%
ART UNIT 2124
3 APPS · 33% ALLOWANCE · LIMITED DATA

Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.

33% allowance (of decided)▏ art-unit average 64%
DISPOSITION1 / 2 / 0allowed / abandoned / pending
FIRST ACTION30.9 moart unit avg 28.5 mo
TOTAL PENDENCY49.1 moart unit avg 41.8 mo
// REJECTION PROFILE
§101 — Subject-matter eligibility33% · art unit 61%
§102 — Anticipation (novelty)100%
§103 — Obviousness100% · art unit 88%
§112 — Written description & definiteness100%

Based on 3 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.

// FAQ

Questions about Examiner Robert H Bejcek Ii

  • What is the overall allowance rate for this examiner?
    The examiner's overall allowance rate is 66% across 278 disposed applications in TC 2100.
  • How many art units does this examiner cover?
    The examiner has a public record spanning 4 art units (2123, 2124, 2129, 2148) in TC 2100.
  • Does the allowance rate vary by art unit?
    Yes. The allowance rate ranges from 60% to 71% across the examiner's art units.
  • What do these figures represent?
    These figures represent the examiner's historical record of dispositions and are not predictions of any specific application outcome.
◈ RESPONDING TO AN OFFICE ACTION

Strategy, not paperwork. Talk to the attorney doing the work.

Lynch LLP represents applicants in patent prosecution before the USPTO. Book a consultation to discuss your matter with the attorney who would handle it.

Book a 30-minute consultation →
METHODOLOGY & DISCLOSURES

Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Robert H Bejcek Ii has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 2026. The overall allowance rate is total allowed divided by total decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all art units — not an average of the per-art-unit rates; pending applications are excluded. Figures are rounded for display. Pooled sample: 310 applications.

Lynch LLP is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Examiner statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data.

These statistics describe past examiner behavior and do not predict the outcome of any particular application. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Where this page compares an examiner's allowance rate to an art-unit average, that comparison is a factual description of the public record, not a characterization of any individual examiner's conduct or competence.

This page is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing it. Full disclaimers →

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING — Sean Lynch, Partner, Lynch LLP